Skip to main content

HESS v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

OKLADecember 16, 2014Cited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the trial court's award of $7.2 million in attorney fees, finding it constituted an abuse of discretion where the class recovery was only $45,780. The court held that including hours from failed out-of-state litigation and applying a 1.9 multiplier based on non-binding Missouri precedent was improper.

What This Ruling Means

# Hess v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. — Plain English Summary **What Happened** Employees filed a class action lawsuit against Volkswagen, claiming the company breached an employment contract. A trial court initially awarded the group $45,780 in damages and also ordered Volkswagen to pay $7.2 million in attorney fees to the workers' lawyers. **What the Court Decided** Oklahoma's highest court overturned the attorney fees award. The court found the amount was unreasonably high compared to what employees actually recovered. The judges determined the lawyers included work hours from unsuccessful lawsuits in other states and applied an unfair fee multiplier that wasn't properly justified. Volkswagen won this appeal—employees kept their $45,780 but didn't receive the larger attorney fees payment. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling affects how much lawyers can charge in employment cases. While workers kept their settlement money, the reduced attorney fees mean less funding goes toward legal representation in class action lawsuits. Workers considering group claims should understand that courts carefully review attorney fee requests and may limit what lawyers can charge, potentially affecting the quality of legal representation available in future cases.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
BAUGHMAN
OKLASep 2025

¶0 Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging she was terminated because of her mental and physical disabilities. Her sole legal claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the common law claim was prohibited/preempted by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. The trial judge granted the motion. Plaintiff then moved to vacate the summary judgment order. Subsequently, the original judge issued an order disqualifying herself. Thereafter, the newly assigned judge granted Plaintiff's motion to vacate the order sustaining summary adjudication. Defendants appealed the order vacating summary judgment, an interlocutory order appealable by right. We retained the appeal and now reverse, remanding with instructions to reinstate the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

Mixed Result
OBI HOLDING COMPANY v. SCHULTZ-BUTZBACH AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
OKLASep 2025

¶0 Employer moved to dismiss Employee's claim pursuant to 85A O.S. § 69 (A)(4)(b) after Employee did not receive or seek medical benefits for a period of nine months. Administrative Law Judge denied Employer's motion to dismiss, and the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed. We retained the matter for disposition and reverse the order of the Workers' Compensation Commission.

Defendant Win
Agrawal
OKLAOct 2015
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.